Cit e as 2014 Ark. App. 28



## ARKANS AS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II No. CV-13-780 ANGELA WATSON APPELLANT V. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF H U MAN SERVICES and MINOR CH ILDREN APPELLEES Opinion Delivered January 15, 2014 APPEAL FROM TH E CRAIGH EAD COU NTY CIRCU IT COU RT [NO. JV-2009-363] H ONORAB LE B ARB ARA H A LSEY , JU DGE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITH DRAW GRANTED

BI L L H. WALMSLEY, Judge Appellant A n g ela Wat son’s at t orney has filed a no-m erit brief and a m ot ion to wit hdraw on appeal from t h e t erm inat ion o f appellant ’s parent al right s t o h er children, C.W., born Novem ber 19, 2 004, and C.S., born Sept em ber 17, 2011. We affirm t he t erm inat i on of parent al right s and grant t he m ot ion t o wit hdraw. Pursuant t o L i nk er-Flores v. Ark ansas Department of Human Services , 359 A rk. 131, 194 S

. W .3d 739 (2004), and Arkansas Suprem e Court Rule 6-9(i) (2012), counsel’s brief m u s t

cont ain all rulings from t he t erm inat ion hearing t hat are adverse to appellant and explain why

none of t hose rulings present an issue of arguable m erit f or appeal. As t here were no adverse rulings m ade on object ions or m ot ions at t he h earing, the on l y i s s u e is t he t erm inat i on decision. Term inat ion of parent al right s is an ext rem e rem edy and in derogat ion of t he nat uralCit e as 2014 Ark. App. 28

right s o f parent s. Fredrick v. Ark

. Dep’ t of Human Servs. , 2010 A rk. App. 104, 377 S.W.3d 306. DH S m u st prove by clear and convincing evidence t h at t e rm ina t i o n i s in t he child’s best int erest and t hat at least one st at ut ory ground for t erm inat ion exist s. Id. ; Ark. Code Ann. § 9-2 7

- 3 4 1 ( b ) ( 3)(A) and (B ) (Supp. 2009). Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof t h at will produce in t he fact -finder a firm convict ion as t o t he allegat ion sought t o be

est ablished. Fredrick , supra . When t he burden of proving a disput ed fact i s by clea r a n d convincing evidence, t he appellat e inquiry is whet her t he t rial c ourt ’ s finding t hat t he disput ed fact was proved b y clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. Id. A finding is clearly

erroneous when, alt hough t here is evidence t o support it , t he reviewing court on t he ent ire evidence is l eft wit h a d efinit e a n d f i r m co nvict ion t h at a m ist ake has been m ade. Id. We review t erm inat ion-of-parent al-right s cases de novo. Id. The only wit ness at the t erm inat ion hearing was Kimberly Jacobs, a fost er-care worker f o r C r a i ghead County Children and Fam ily Services. C.W. was first t aken int o c ust ody i n Oct ober 2009 and was adjudicat ed dependent -neglect ed based o n sexual abuse b y appellant ’s husband against m inors in t he h o m e a n d t h e absence of a legal c ust odian due to appellant ’s incarcerat i on. C.W. was ret u r ned t o appellant ’ s cust ody on Sept em b er 16, 2010. Jacobs t est ified t hat problem s arose again in March 2012 when appellant b egan having dom est ic issues wit h her boyfriend, Chris Clark. Jacobs t est ified t hat Clark was charged wit h assault ing appellant on March 17, 2012, wit h t he children in t he hom e. Event u ally an order of prot ect ion was obt ained. Aft er t he review hearing held on March 29, 2012, t he t rial court ordered t hat appellant “review and approve of a safet y p lan t hat prevent s Chris Clark from

2Cit e as 2014 Ark. App. 28

having any cont act wit h her children, and if t he mot h er violat es t hat plan t hen t he Depart m ent m ay rem ove her children.” Appellant signed such a prot ect ion plan o n April 9, 2012, agreeing t hat neit h er she nor her children would have cont act wit h Clark. Su b s e q uent ly, D HS received inform at ion that appellant w as not following t he prot ect ion plan and t hat t he fam ily was st aying in a t railer wit h no wat er or elect ricity. I n June 2012, DH S decided t o t ake t he children int o cust ody; however, appellant hid t he children for nearly t wo weeks before c om ing to court on June 2 9. Bot h children were then

t aken int o cust o d

y and w e re adjudicat ed dependent -neglect ed due t o inadequat e supervision, parent al unfit ness, and educat ional neglectas t o C.W. B y Oct ober 2012 , a p pellant was allowed unsupervised weekend visit at ion wit h t he children. During t he second weekend of visit at i on, a fam ily service worker found Clark in

t h e hom e wit h appellant and t he children, and weekend visit at ion w as h alt ed. F ollowing a hearing on February 25, 2 013, t he court t erm inat ed reunificat ion services. T he court found

t h at there was lit t le l i keliho o d t h a t s e rvices t o t he fam ily would r esult in successful reunificat i on d ue t o appellant ’s cont inued c ont act wit h Clark i n viola t ion o f court orders. The court also not ed t hat t he case had been open for over t hree years and DH S had offered

t h e full range of services t o appellant . In March 2013, t here was anot her dom est ic incident bet ween appellant and Clark t hat result ed in him b e i n g c ha r g ed wit h assault i n g a fam ily

m em ber. The pet it ion for t e rm i nat ion of parent al right s was filed on March 13, 2013. The t rial c ourt det erm ined t hat it was i n t h e children’s best int erest t o term inat e appellant ’s parent al right s and f o u n d t hat DH S h ad proved two st at ut ory grounds for

3Cit e as 2014 Ark. App. 28

t e rm inat ion: (1) t he “ s u b sequent fact ors” ground, found in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B )(vii), and (2) t h e “aggravat ed circum st ances” ground, found in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B )(ix)( a )( 3 ), in t hat t he court had previously det erm ined t hat t here was lit t le likelihood t hat services t o t he fam ily would result in successful reunificat ion. We agree wit h appellant ’ s counsel t h at t here i s no m erit o r i o u s basis upon which to argue t hat t he evidence was i nsufficient t o support t e r m i n a t i on. Alt hough appellant had

com p let ed many services, she had not m a i n t a i n ed st able housing o r em ploym ent , and she disobeyed t he court ’s orders r egarding Clark. Jacobs t est i f i e d t h a t she did not b elieve t he children could be safely ret urned t o appell a n t ’s h om e and t hat t here were no fact ors that would hinder adopt ion of the children. The t erm inat i on decision was not clearly erroneous and t here are n o issues of arguable m erit for appeal. Accordingly, w e affirm t he t erm inat i on of parent al right s and grant t he m ot ion t o wit hdraw. Affirm ed; m o tion t o wit hdraw grant ed. G L O V E R and VA U G H T , JJ, agree. Leah Lanford , Arkansas Public Defender Com m ission, for appellant

.

4